[Updated at 1:36 p.m.] We're wrapping up Day 2 of the same-sex marriage court debate here - check out our main story for more detail and analysis as it comes today. As always, we want to hear from you.

[Updated at 1:20 p.m.] "I'm very optimistic that DOMA will be struck down, it has no rational basis for being," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said just now. Pelosi was at the Supreme Court to hear arguments over DOMA and California's Proposition 8 over the past two days.

If legally married homosexuals were being denied more than 1,100 federal benefits, "What kind of marriage is that?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She said the discriminatory effect was "pervasive."

But when Windsor's lawyer argued in court there was a "sea change" afoot today in support of same-sex marriage that leaves DOMA outdated, Chief Justice John Roberts said that was because of "the political effectiveness of those on your side" swaying public opinion.

Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia suggested DOMA could still remain in place as a valid extension of congressional authority. Forty-one states do not allow same-sex marriage.

The potential swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, said DOMA presents a "real risk of running into traditional state police power to regulate marriage."

[Updated at 12:54 p.m.] The case of DOMA plaintiff Edie Windsor originated in New York, where Donna Lieberman heads the New York Civil Liberties Union.

‚ÄúMy state, the state of New York, respects the rights of all couples, straight or gay, to marry," Lieberman told reporters just moments ago. "But as long as DOMA remains on the books, the marriages are not truly equal. The federal government treats New York gay and lesbian couples as if they don‚Äôt exist. ‚Ä¶ It‚Äôs time the federal government treats the marriages of all New Yorkers with the respect and dignity ‚Ä¶ they deserve."

The federal government ‚Äúshould never relegate the marriage of a couple like Edie and Thea to the legal status of strangers,‚ÄĚ she said.

[Updated at 12:43 p.m.] Marriage is a magic word, Windsor says, for anyone who doesn't understand why she still wanted to get married at age 73 to her partner, Thea Clara Spyer.

"I felt very serious" in court today, she says.

How does she think the oral argument went? "I think it went beautifully. I think the justices were gentle, if I can use that word. They were direct, they asked all the right questions - but I didn't feel any hostility. ... I think it's going to be good."

She showed off a diamond brooch in the shape of a circle that she was given decades ago by Spyer when they wanted to be engaged. Windsor said the couple picked the brooch over a traditional engagement ring because Windsor wasn't ready to come out yet.

[Updated at 12:41 p.m.] Windsor takes the mic and says, "Today, I‚Äôm an out lesbian who just sued the United States government. It‚Äôs a little overwhelming."

[Updated at 12:37 p.m.] Windsor's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, told reporters just now: "Today‚Äôs arguments tells the lesson of why it is we have a Constitution: to bind us together as citizens of one nation, all of whom are guaranteed equal protection under the law. There is no one individual who personifies the concept of equal protection like Edie Windsor."

[Updated at 12:32 p.m.] Edie Windsor is walking out, and being greeted by cheering crowds. Alicia Keys' "Girl On Fire" is blasting from speakers.

[Updated at 12:29 p.m.] ‚ÄúThe court appears to be moving toward an out if it wants it on procedural grounds,‚ÄĚ CNN Correspondent Joe Johns said just minutes ago. At issue is whether House Republicans have standing to defend DOMA instead of the Obama administration, which has decided not to defend it.

As for the merits of the case, there was a lot of discussion as to why the U.S. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 ‚Äď whether it was just trying to ensure legal uniformity on marriage, or whether something else was afoot, like moral disapproval of homosexuality, Johns said.

[Updated at 12:22 p.m.] "They are obviously very deeply split. But I think DOMA is in trouble," says CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin of the Supreme Court justices after watching the arguments.

[Updated at 12:20 p.m.] Both parties are leaving the courthouse right now. Stay tuned for latest developments.

[Updated at 12:16 p.m.] Oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act at the Supreme Court have ended after nearly two hours.

[Updated at 11:49 a.m.] If the high court is on schedule, the oral arguments should be more than three-quarters of the way through. Just outside, protesters are speaking out about why the fight over DOMA is so important to them. Here's a snapshot of some folks tweeting outside the Supreme Court:

[Updated at 11:27 a.m.] A number of legal observers have pointed out that the court, when it makes its decision on DOMA later this year, could skirt the issue of same-sex marriage by simply saying that the party defending it ‚Äď the House GOP ‚Äď doesn‚Äôt have the right to do so.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told CNN moments ago that this is very possible.

Congressional Republicans took up the cause after the Obama administration declined to defend the law. Turley says that judging by justices‚Äô questions in yesterday‚Äôs Proposition 8 hearing, some justices are "worried about handing down a major ruling‚ÄĚ on same-sex marriage.

‚ÄúToday‚Äôs case is going to be another example of that. They have an out. They can reject this case on standing, which is basically saying that one of the parties doesn‚Äôt have the right to be here in court. And there are significant standing problems here, and it is right there for any justice to take as an exit,‚ÄĚ Turley said.

‚Äú‚Ä¶ For justices that are already a little bit squeamish about this issue, they can easily take this exit and say ‚Äėyou, members of Congress, cannot speak for the nation.‚Äô‚ÄĚ

[Updated at 11:11 a.m.] Well, here's one way to look at it. CNN's Shannon Travis found this controversial sign outside the courthouse.

[Updated at 11:02 a.m.] Same sex-marriage has also divided the religious community. We've seen Catholics rallying for and against it. Barrett Duke, of the The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, just tweeted this a little while ago:

[Updated at 10:52 a.m.] Anti-gay protesters have also gathered in support of keeping DOMA in place. While some say they are concerned that same-sex marriage threatens the traditional family institution, others offered more fiery rhetoric.

[Updated at 10:39 a.m.] The weather has warmed up a bit in Washington, and so has the crowd. Same-sex marriage supporters who want to see an end to DOMA are rallying outside the Supreme Court.

[Updated at 10:14 a.m.] The arguments should be under way by now, but the high court isn't expected to rule on DOMA until sometime this summer.

So let's talk about what's at stake here: money. If the Supreme Court overturns the federal law that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, some married same-sex couples will save $8,000 or more in income tax, according to a new study.

A same-sex couple with combined income of $100,000, in which one person earns $70,000 and the other makes $30,000, currently pays an extra $1,625 per year by filing separately rather than jointly, according to an analysis H&R Block conducted for CNNMoney. The calculations assume a standard deduction, no children and no tax credits.

The extra tax liability jumps to nearly $8,000 when one spouse earns all $100,000 and the other reports no income. In this case, couples filing jointly owe tax of $11,858, while a same-sex couple filing separately owes $19,585 - a 65% difference.

[Updated at 10 a.m.] If things are rolling according to plan, court is in session now and the oral arguments on DOMA will start after a few housekeeping items. We can't show you the inside of the courthouse (no cameras allowed), but here's what's going on outside. It appears to be a bit mellower than yesterday's rallies.

[Updated at 9:41 a.m.] As the justices prepare to hear a second day of oral arguments, the crowds have returned outside the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The sun is out, the temperatures are down - but the flags are up.

Some protesters had parked themselves, braving near freezing temperatures at dawn, to secure a good seat.

Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old plaintiff in the DOMA case, greeted protesters earlier in the morning on her way into the courthouse.

[Updated at 9:15 a.m.] Less than an hour to go before oral arguments start, but same-sex marriage is gaining steam on social media. As of 9 a.m. #DOMA and #SCOTUS were among the top five U.S. topics trending on Twitter - not bad for #humpday.

[Updated at 8:34 a.m.] Today's drill is similar to yesterday's - arguments to start a little after 10 a.m. ET, and no cameras. But lawyers arguing before the court will get one hour and 50 minutes. Hey, that's almost an hour more than what Proposition 8 got.

In addition to Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, Correspondent Joe Johns and Bill Mears will be inside the courthouse to bring us the latest.

To make the best sense of yesterday's hearing, dive into this "5 things we learned" from our Supreme Court producer Bill Mears. It's got the audio of key parts of the hearings so you can hear Justice Scalia for example while reading Mears' analysis.

[Posted at 8:25a.m.] To understand the arguments around DOMA, get to know Edith Windsor - the woman at the heart of the case. "Edie," as she's well known, spent 42 years of her life with Thea Clara Spyer.

But even after they married in 2007 in Toronto, four decades into their courtship, the two women were not "like most couples" in the eyes of the state of New York, where they lived, nor in the eyes of the U.S. government, which under the Defense of Marriage Act mandates that a spouse, as legally defined, must be a person of the opposite sex.

In 2009, a month after Spyer died, Windsor was slapped with a massive bill for inheritance taxes - $363,053 more than was warranted, she later claimed in court - because Spyer was, in legal terms, just a friend. She would ultimately argue in court that her relationship with Spyer should not be considered any different than a heterosexual couple when it came to rights, taxes and other issues.

In October, Windsor, now 83, got an answer in the form of a ruling opinion from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court found, in her favor, that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and thus she shouldn't have had to pay an inheritance tax after her partner's death. This follows a similar ruling, in May, from another federal appeals court in Boston.

The Obama administration isn't challenging the ruling - the president has said he supports same-sex marriage. Lawyers representing House Republicans are taking up the case, since both Windsor and the administration are taking the same legal position.

[Updated at 7:58 a.m.]Just a few minutes until the doors open to the Supreme Court. While we wait, weigh your state on CNN's LGBT rights calculator.

And, remember the red equal sign all over Twitter and Facebook yesterday? You'll probably see more of it today.

[Updated at 7:22 a.m.] While yesterday dealt with big questions (Who should be allowed to marry? What is the impact of same-sex marriage on children?), today's arguments will look at a relatively clearer issue - discrimination, according to CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

The arguments over DOMA will focus on the nine states plus the District of Columbia, which allow same-sex marriage. Will they treat same-sex couple the same as straight couples?

"It's a case about money, benefits and who can be denied those benefits," Toobin said.

[Posted at 7:06 a.m.] We‚Äôre gearing up this morning for round two of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage.

Yesterday, the justices heard both sides of California‚Äôs Proposition 8. The overriding legal question in that case is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law prevents states from defining marriage as that state has done. Some 80 minutes of arguments left no clear picture of how things might go - but here's what we learned from it.

Today‚Äôs arguments deal with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which like Proposition 8, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. The federal law means federal tax, Social Security, pension, and bankruptcy benefits, and family medical leave protections do not apply to gay and lesbian couples.

Arguments are scheduled to start at 10 a.m. ET. We‚Äôll have all the latest developments here.

soundoff(90 Responses)

Mary

Anytime a court overturns a ruling in favor of equal rights to the gay community it isn't because of their heartfelt belief that *all* should have the same rights; It's about the MONEY folks! TAXES , REVENUE ect...

That may be true Mary ,but also remember, the Supreme Court this is largley a liberal court which inturprets the law to fit its own needs without considering the long range consequences - ln this case the loss of moral integrity. The morals of this country has fallen a great deal since WWII and it will eventually lead to the downfall of this country, as a matter of fact, along with other lost morals, 'greed' has underminded the country to a guarnteed fall; it is just repeted history. As the old saying goes: those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.

100x duh. Marriage is just a paper. Anyone can print the marriage certificate and you don't need the government to sign it. All these people wants is benefits meaning money. They protest to make it lawful is to get free money.

When my husband Duane died 4 years ago, I had to pay over $8,000 in estate taxes that I wouldn't have had to pay if he were a woman. But, honestly, I'd sell everything I own just to spend one more day with him. Yes, the money matters, but it isn't the only thing we care about.

Most of the decisions people make in their lives have a financial factor to consider? It doesn't change the heart of the matter. If you decide not to take your kids to the movie because your money is running low... does that mean you don't love your kids. Of course not.

Guest, polygamists should have the same right to marry. It was Catholic morals that forced them to quit this ages old biblical practice. Your pedophile argument indicates an inferior ability to reason and argue.

What about the parts that say you have to make sacrifices whenever you menstrate? do you do that? If not you're unclean. What about the part that says you can't work on Sunday or women cannot cut their hair. If you cut your hair you are going to Hell to burn for all eternity. The Bible also condems divorce in Leviticus, so if you or anyone you know has been divorced you are breaking God's rules and you will go to Hell because it states in the Bible that "all sin is equal in the eyes of God" so breaking any of these rules is just as bad as murder. You have to agree because all of this is in the Bible. You choose to quote some portions of the Bible while ignoring others? Yes you do... Talk about hypocrisy.

The Bible can not and should not have any impact on law. Even if the original text was handed down by God him/her/itself, the thousands of intervening years have seen translations, mistranslations, edits, cuts, and misinterpretations that remove any reliability of original intent.

@Jay (and others) One wise person, speakng of Christians, said: "...there is not one person in twenty that is ready for translation." In other words, not oneperson professing to be a Christian in twenty will be saved.

Guess it's all in the myriad of interpretations people use the Bible for to justify bigotry and denying equal rights to a segment of our SECULAR society.
I have never yet met any person who uses their gender preference as a descriptor to their "lifestyle".

You either believe in the promise of all men being created equal or you do not. If you do not, please go join your brethren in the Middle East and enjoy the wonders of living in a theocracy where nobody is safe.

Gays have been among you since the foundation of civilization. They aren't going anywhere and more are being born each day. One might think that evolution is dealing with over-population in a way you didn't expect. The bottom line is this... they refuse to be mistreated any longer by the bigots of this world. That is certainly understandable. So, I say deal with the issue now and in a fair manner or they'll be back ... only stronoger the next time.

@Joseph-if gays were evrywhere like they claim,which they aren't,then they wouldn't have had to hide in closets.Since were both older,as you state,what makes you think it's us handling this all wrong ? If gays are so righteous,why do they have the highest suicide rate of all groups ? It's definitely not because of pride in their lifestyle,and don't hand me that genetic do-do since now the law is questioning whether genetic evidence should be admissable in court because of possible controversiesabout accuracies.

Fift Five, oh yes, when us old guys turn to ashes, there will be few that oppose equal rights for the gay community.

I will trust that you are accurate on the suicide rates but that just helps jusify this need change. If we had the public and relatives telling us that we are second class or worse, we may find life hopeless more often also.

Truth be told that over the past few years many of us that aren't gay have been more vocal about are support for the gay communty...which is why the majority of the nation's population now favor this equality change which will happen, whether this year or not.

So, get over it and get to know your gay relatives as you will love them just as much or more.

You keep telling yourself that, but in the meantime try to explain why, for the first time, gay marriage was approved at the ballot box in not one but two states last fall. You can try to discount polling if you want, but statistics work, and they show overwhelming support in the 18-29 demographic, even among young Republicans.

People who answer surveys to be politically correct don't translate into real votes.

God and Jesus are absolutely and unequivocally of no offense to me. Quite the opposite in being a Born Again Christian.But there is history as told in https://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html that needs to be read by everyone to understand things.

Leaving it up to the states where a majority of people can rule over a minority is unfair and is the exact same thing as allowing one majority religion to rule and make law for another minority religion Guess who would win in the end?

all these issues have an agenda to devour something more righteous than they, get your own scouts and marriage . how do you overlook gender specific words like wife and husband but expect the world to agree with your new invention of marriage with any real understanding . the word mafia is not used for a business establishment , except by the mafia. should a man be able to sue for his dog to be called his son? this is pure confusion .
get a life. the gay community looks like someone who spends his time doing nothing but stepping into others' yelling "i'm gay , i"m gay " every pouter is so offended and the gay agenda would even remove my right to disagree . but they got to put it on the law books and call it a hate crime while they declare for themselves freedom of speech. there's got to be some rich and powerful gays in high places for this much propaganda that they keep shoving down our throats . i'm waiting for society to puke it back your way . cause i'm sure sick of it and its feeble reasons and excuses to hijack society. proverbs says depart from a man when you perceive not in him the words of knowledge . and job sums up who is this that darkens council by words without knowledge . the knowledge of the Holy is understanding. prov.

About This Blog

This blog ‚Äď This Just In ‚Äď will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.